Not too long ago I was spending some time with my nephews, who are six and three years old. These guys are high energy fellows that bring me such joy. As we played with building blocks, they started to create all sorts of wonderful things that come from a boy’s imagination. By looking at the collections of blocks they had assembled, I had no idea what they had created. They had to tell me what each item was and then describe the exciting features on the spaceships, guns or alien creatures they had built.

As the boys pieced together their new creations, they were able to form them in whatever manner they desired. While no one had ever seen the particular lego monster with laser beam eyes and blasters for hands that was built that morning, it was an assembly of pieces and ideas that the boys had previously seen or experienced.

Just as the boys made their new creations based on what they liked, many people that I speak with about faith “build” their God based on what they like.

A recent Pew survey indicates that more than 75% of American adults identify with some branch of the Christian faith. But if you take a look at the cultural landscape, can you find evidence that 3 out of 4 Americans is Christian? Instead of building their understanding of God based on the Bible, many, many self-professed Christians are engineering their version of God to look like themselves.

I have found easy-to-identify clues that give away when someone is engineering God in their own image. When you hear statements that begin with…

I believe in God, but…

God wants me to be happy.

God made me this way. He understands.

Culture has changed since the Bible was written, so it doesn’t apply/mean the same thing now as then.

All religions are really worshipping the same God.

I don’t need organized religion to be spiritual.

While it is true that there is some room for interpretation of what the Bible means, the salvation message and the character of God are indisputable.

Truly understanding that God has created us makes us recognize that we are accountable to him for how we live our lives. It can be uncomfortable for us to admit that we are not in control, and we are not free to live as we wish without consequences. Therefore, many people create a version of God that is easy to be accountable to, rather than the holy, righteous, powerful and just God we learn of through Scripture.

How do you protect yourself from engineering God in your own image?

What consequences result from creating our own personal version of God?

Please reply to this post. I’d love to get your input.

]]>https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/engineering-a-false-god-in-our-own-image/feed/2reallifeapologeticsphoto courtesy of Eran Sandler via flickr.comMeeting Jesus at the buffethttps://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/meeting-jesus-at-the-buffet/
https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/meeting-jesus-at-the-buffet/#respondTue, 30 Jun 2015 11:01:08 +0000http://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/?p=316Continue reading Meeting Jesus at the buffet]]>Americans love a buffet. It may be the traditional Thanksgiving feast laid out at grandma’s house. Or perhaps one prefers the dozens of options available at the Chinese restaurant. In either case, we love the choices before us.
photo courtesy of mharvey.nyc via flickr.com

When we have choices of what we are going to eat, we normally select those items that we like the best. I’d much rather have barbeque brisket and fried okra than I would a grilled piece of chicken. And my dessert preference would be pie and ice cream instead of a single, humble apple.

Too many times I see Christians treating Jesus as though he is a buffet. And I include myself in that group.

It is easy to want the parts of Jesus that we like and leave behind the parts we don’t.

We will accept the mercy of Jesus, but want to ignore his justice.

We want Jesus to forgive us, but we don’t want to repent of our sins.

We cherish the love he gives to us, but we don’t want to show love to our neighbor.

We expect God to bless us, even though we don’t want to share his blessings with others.

We want him to grant us peace, yet we would rather numb our pain rather than find comfort in him.

We want him to provide for our physical needs, even when we won’t take up our cross and follow him.

If we eat meals that consist only of sugar and fat, it will not be long until our bodies are malnourished and diseased. Likewise, if we only take those parts of Jesus that we like and ignore the others, our faith will be weak.

Without his judgment, there is no need for his mercy.

Without suffering, there is no need for his peace.

Without our trials, there is no need for his perseverence.

Without death, there is no need for hope.

May we all embrace Jesus today. Not just those parts that we find to be comfortable, but all of him.

Have you ever read something, whether it be in the Bible or some other piece of literature, and some word or phrase stood out that you had not noticed before?

I fear that sometimes verses we hear and read regularly can become so familiar that they become dull. One time, while reading through 1 Peter 3, I recognized something in verse 15 I had not really seen before. That verse reads:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Much of the focus in apologetics is the answer – being ready to give answers for our faith. But who are we to be ready to give an answer to? This verse says everyone.

How does one do this? In my mind I categorize people into four different audiences for Christian apologetics.

1. Myself. I admit it. There are times when I wonder if I have been duped into thinking that Christianity is real and if there is a god at all. In those times, I use what I have learned through my study of apologetics to give my faith a bit of a boost.

2. Believers. I have learned that I am not the only Christian that has times of doubt. Being ready to give my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ an answer for our shared hope in Christ is a way to carry their burdens. Believers will usually accept the Bible as a reference point, so you can use Scripture to help give them reasons for that hope.

Note: Be careful to discern when someone needs a sympathetic heart to listen to them versus when they need a rational reason to strengthen their faith.

3. Skeptics. I define skeptics as those that are considering Christianity but have reservations. Being able to use the Bible with these people is usually a case-by-case basis. Some may want to understand how a certain verse applies to the whole picture of Christianity, while others may be hesitant to accept the saying from such an ancient book. We need to be sensitive to their needs as they continue their journey toward faith.

4. Critics. Critics are those who are not looking to engage in a real conversation about faith, but are looking to tear down, ridicule, or otherwise belittle those that believe in the Bible and in Jesus. I do engage in religios conversation with critics, but it is with people that I have a relationship with. Without relationship, there is little chance the critic will really listen to the apologist’s words.

I try to ask quesitons of people to evaluate which one of these categories they may be in. Then when they ask me questions, I attempt to answer them in a manner that is gentle and respectful. Having knowledge of the audience is invaluable in public speaking and in apologetics.

When you defend your faith, do you use different approaches to different audiences? Please share what those are in the comment section.

]]>https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/christian-apologists-whos-in-your-audience/feed/1reallifeapologeticsphoto courtesy of Frank Taillandier via flickr.comChristianity is rejected because of dislike rather than rational reasonshttps://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/is-the-rejection-of-christianity-an-emotional-or-a-rational-decision/
https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/is-the-rejection-of-christianity-an-emotional-or-a-rational-decision/#commentsFri, 12 Jun 2015 12:29:31 +0000http://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/?p=295Continue reading Christianity is rejected because of dislike rather than rational reasons]]>photo courtesy of Au Kirk via flickr.com

A few years ago I was running as a regular part of an exercise routine, despite having injured both knees playing intramural sports in college. After many instances in which I had severe, sharp knee pain, I went to the doctor to find the cause. His examination showed that I had very little cartilage in my knees. His solution to reduce my knee pains – stop running.

I wish to reject that diagnosis. Running is an exercise I really enjoy. I mean enjoyed. I don’t like the fact that running will cause more knee damage. However, I cannot allow myself to reject the facts because of an emotional response. Unless I want knee surgery in the near future.

There are other truths I don’t like either. But rejection of those truths may have serious consequences. For example, I love eating ice cream. But eating ice cream for every meal will cause disease and early death. Though I would get great emotional satisfaction from eating ice cream for dinner, I must make wiser decisions if I want to live to see my future grandkids grow up.

The majority of religious skeptics and critics I have spoken with say that they reject Christianity for rational reasons. When I ask them to explain further, they often reveal that their reasons are actually emotional roadblocks. There are certain things that they don’t like about Christianity, and therefore they reject the faith. Some common emotional reasons for rejecting Christianity include:

1. denial of authority of the church, which often is a dislike of “organized religion”

2. the behavior of Christians, i.e. Christians are hypocrites

3. a particular behavior or lifestyle in described in the Bible as sin – fornication, adultery, homosexuality

4. a loving God wouldn’t send people to hell

5. the amount of suffering in the world

When we read the news headlines or watch a news broadcast, we see story after story describing events that we don’t like – child abuse, rioting, civil wars and natural disasters. Do we deny that these things happen because we don’t like them? Of course not.

There are some things I don’t like about Christianity.

I don’t like that sin has consequences.

I don’t like that hell is real.

I don’t like that I won’t be married to my wife Michelle in heaven.

But these dislikes do not stop me from believing. There is too much evidence for the existence of God (see my prior post) and truth of Christianity to reject the faith based on my emotional objections.

If it is foolish for someone to believe in a faith just because of some emotional response, then isn’t it equally foolish to reject a faith just because of some emotional response?

What emotional roadblocks cause you to reject Christianity? Have you searched for ways to remove that roadblock?

What emotional roadblocks did you have to overcome in order to accept the truth of Christianity?

In the last several posts, I have tried to paint a picture showing that without God, morality is entirely subjective. Thus, without God, differences in moral standards are no more that differences in personal preferences.

If societies get to define morality, then war is not right or wrong. It’s merely a struggle for power.

If morals are defined by how a family raises their children, then there is nothing wrong when a family raises their kids to be cop killers.

If individuals each get to decide their own morality, then there is no instance in which any person is justified in condemning the attitudes or actions of another.

But our experience tells us that there are absolute moral laws that apply to everyone. And if we were to poll people of all faiths, including atheism (faith that God does not exist), I think we would find that almost everyone agrees that the last six of the Ten Commandments are absolutely correct as moral laws.

Honor your father and mother.

Do not kill.

Do not commit adultery.

Do not steal.

Do not lie against your neighbor.

Do not covet your neighbors’ possessions.

People disagree on the origin of these laws, but they accept them as moral duties we should follow. I haven’t spoken with anyone, Christian, non-Christian or atheist, who denies that these are moral absolutes and that everyone should live by them. I am not arguing that atheists or non-Christians cannot live moral lives. They certainly can, and most do. What is at stake here is the origin of the moral laws by which we live.

After having establishing this common ground, I would like to propose an argument that I learned from Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. While this moral argument isn’t unique to Craig, I like his wording.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In order to deny statement number 3, either statement 1 or 2 must be shown to be false. Through my reading and in conversations with people, very few actually deny statement 2. So, in order to defeat this argument, those who accept statement 2 must show that objective moral values do exist without God.

How could such morals laws exist without God? If God does not exist, then our world is made up entirely of matter. If nothing exists other than matter, then there cannot be a moral law that dictates how people (who are just blobs of matter) ought to behave. Granted, there are physical laws. But these laws don’t dictate how matter should behave. Rather, physical laws are descriptive of how matter behaves.

Through the last several posts I hope to have demonstrated that objective moral values cannot have their basis through personal reflection, family upbringing, cultural decisions or evolutionary processes. Some people will continue to deny that moral absolutes point to the existence of God, but they do so because of emotional reasons rather than intellectual objections.

Is the moral argument sufficient to imply that God exists?

If you disagree with premise 1 or 2 of the argument, please explain why. I’d like to know the weaknesses in the argument.

After doing a very quick internet search for how people decide right and wrong, I found that there are many, many such discussions. The majority of responses I saw could be divided into three themes:

We know what is right and wrong based on the way we were raised.

Everyone gets to determine right and wrong for themselves.

Right and wrong just exist and we don’t need religion or anyone else to tell us what is right and wrong.

In reading these answers, I could tell that there wasn’t much thought put into them. The answers seemed shallow and in many instances attacked the existence of God or the need for a moral agent of any type.

I know philosophers and serious supporters of atheism would have formulated better responses than the ones I read. However, most people that we Christians encounter in our daily lives are not philosophers and probably haven’t spend time thinking through how they decide right and wrong and what the consequences of their decisions are. The answers I read were pretty well in line with those I have heard from people when discussing the basis of morality.

There are questions I like to ask people when I get into moral discussions. Initially I’m not as concerned with what they view as right and wrong, but rather why they believe what they do. And I get to that by asking questions. For the above three responses, I ask the following questions:

We know what is right and wrong based on the way we were raised.

What happens when you disagree with the way you were raised? Were your parents wrong for teaching you the morals that they did?

Everyone gets to determine right and wrong for themselves.

Whose view of right and wrong triumphs when two people’s views disagree? In this view, how can anyone say that Hitler’s extermination of millions of Jews was wrong? And how can the Civil Rights movement be right?

True right and wrong just exist and we don’t need religion or anyone else to tell us what is right and wrong.

If right and wrong just exist, how did they come into existence? Did they exist before the universe began? How are we as people to learn or understand what is right and wrong?

While these questions are direct, I am careful to ask them with a tone of curiosity, not attacking their position. I have found that most people are open to a hearty discussion on morality when they feel as though they are being listened to and understood. By being prepared to ask a few simple questions, you will then be facilitating a real conversation on an important topic. But also be ready to give the reasons behind what you believe.

I will wrap of this series on morality in my next post by sharing a solid philosophical argument for the existence of God based on the existence of moral absolutes.

How do you start morality-based conversations with others?

]]>https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/gently-and-respectfully-challenging-how-people-define-wrong-and-right/feed/2reallifeapologeticsimage courtesy of Andi Jetaime via flickr.comEstasblishing common ground on the existence of morality.https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/estasblishing-common-ground-on-the-existence-of-morality/
https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/estasblishing-common-ground-on-the-existence-of-morality/#respondSat, 23 May 2015 15:04:25 +0000http://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/?p=275Continue reading Estasblishing common ground on the existence of morality.]]>In my last post, I asked the following question:

Are our current [cultural] debates over same sex marriage and abortion and religion in schools just a part of the evolution of our species, or are there real, moral absolute issues at hand?

There will be very few people, even the atheistic humanist, that will say that these issues are just about evolution of the human race. Our experiences as people tell us that there are some things that are just right and others that are just wrong. And those moral laws apply to all people at all times in all cultures throughout history. The social issues I listed in the question above are debated because everyone engaged believes their position to be the right one.

With these topics making the headlines and trending on social media so often, moral debates give excellent opportunity for Christians to engage the people around them. And starting the discussion is straightforward. Begin by simply asking someone what they think of the latest news story or poll. Most people, particularly those that you have some level of relationship with, will likely be happy to share with you.

After they have stated their thoughts, you can ask questions to allow them to expand on the topic. If you choose to go further into the conversation, you can quickly determine whether someone believes in moral absolutes by asking a few simple questions and evaluating their response.

When is it OK for someone to…

torture dogs for fun?

stop a toddler from running into a busy highway?

rape a drunk college girl?

murder millions because of their race?

Never and always are absolute statements. And if any of the questions are answered with never or always,the person believes in moral absolutes.

But do questions of marriage or abortion or religion in school involve moral absolutes?

Should consenting adults always be allowed to marry someone of the same gender?

Should a woman always be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

Should a public school never select a textbook that explains that the world was created rather than evolved?

The person you are talking to will let you know whether they really believe in moral absolutes or not by the way they answer these questions. In my experience, everyone I have spoken with believes that there are moral absolutes in at least some areas of life.

When someone acknowledges that moral absolutes do exist, the Christian has established common ground with them. It is from this common ground that we can then move forward, addressing how moral absolutes are established and how we can know what those are.

How do you get people to discuss hotly debated topics like abortion and same sex marriage?

Do you find people want to talk about these topics?

]]>https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/estasblishing-common-ground-on-the-existence-of-morality/feed/0reallifeapologeticsDoes morality based in evolution make sense?https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/does-morality-based-in-evolution-make-sense/
https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/does-morality-based-in-evolution-make-sense/#commentsTue, 19 May 2015 11:40:13 +0000http://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/?p=268Continue reading Does morality based in evolution make sense?]]>

Several years ago I attended a debate about between an atheist and a Christian about Intelligent Design. The two participants were Michael Ruse and William Dembski. Part of the debate included whether or not there were moral absolutes.

I describe moral absolutes as moral requirements that apply to all people at all times, regardless of culture or how one was raised. While Dembski said that moral absolutes do in fact exist, Ruse defended the position that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. The ideas of right and wrong that we have are programmed into us through millions of years of evolution, and have been selected as the rules that allow us to continue to survive as a species.

While I disagree with Ruse’s point of view, his view on morality is consistent with the idea of atheism. According to Ruse, morality is the result of blind processes and not given to us by God. If we were able to wind time back and re-do all of human evolution, we could expect our biologically-derived morality would be different than what we currently know.

But this idea of there being no moral absolutes is contrary to our experience as people. We know that child abuse is wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong. And these are wrong, not because of what we have been chemically programmed to believe, but because they are in fact wrong. In Ruse’s view, there is nothing absolutely wrong with child abuse or rape or murder. There is nothing absolutely wrong with dumping toxic sludge into the oceans and nothing absolutely wrong with torturing people for the fun of it. All of these things that we consider wrong are just the result of social and biological conditioning by our genes.

But how does this idea of morality being derived from evolution work when there are differing points of view on morality? Are our current debates over same sex marriage and abortion and religion in schools just a part of the evolution of our species, or are there real, moral absolute issues at hand? I plan to address these questions in my next post.

Do you think there are moral absolutes that apply to all people at all times in all cultures?

Is our sense of morality derived from evolution?

Please weigh in on this discussion. I’d love to learn from you.

]]>https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/does-morality-based-in-evolution-make-sense/feed/3reallifeapologeticsBreezy Brie on MoralsWho gets to make the rules? Searching for the basis of morality.https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/who-gets-to-make-the-rules-searching-for-the-basis-of-morality/
https://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/who-gets-to-make-the-rules-searching-for-the-basis-of-morality/#respondTue, 12 May 2015 11:42:52 +0000http://reallifeapologetics.wordpress.com/?p=250Continue reading Who gets to make the rules? Searching for the basis of morality.]]>Photo copyright 2011 by J Ronald Lee

During college I was introduced to the game shown in the picture above. Some of the guys that lived on my dorm floor would have regular Axis and Allies game nights. Each game would take about thirty minutes to set up and playing the game took a minimum of four or five hours. I now play this game from time to time with my sons, and when we do we have a great time because we all understand how the game works and we each follow the rules.

But what if I had this game and didn’t know the rules and didn’t have a rule book or an internet connection to find the rules online? Imagine trying to set up a game with hundreds of pieces of five different colors, a stack of little plastic chips and a dozen dice. Now imagine trying to play this game four other people who don’t know the rules either. How do you decide what the rules are and how the game will be played? What happens when there is a disagreement on what the dice rolls mean or how each of the pieces moves? Who gets to decide what the rules are?

When you understand the rules and everyone agrees to play by the rules, games can be great fun. When there are no rules, the game becomes void of all meaning.

In my last post I asked if people were basically good or basically evil. When having this conversation with someone, there will come a point where the next question must be asked.

Who defines what is morally right and morally wrong?

The answer to this question will let you know who the rule-maker is for the person giving the answer.

I think the range of possible answers can be grouped into the following categories:

Morality is an illusion. There is no such thing as morally right and wrong.

The culture (or evolution) has developed what is morally acceptable for society.

I decide what is morally right and wrong for myself.

God, by his nature, defines what is morally right and wrong.

In terms of the game analogy, those answers are:

Rules are an illusion. There are no rules to this game or any other game.

The people playing the game get to decide on the rules.

I get to decide what the rules are for me. And everyone else gets to decide what the rules are for them.

The maker of the game makes the rules. And to play the game, one must follow those rules.

In future posts I will analyze each of these positions, one at a time. Through the series I hope to demonstrate weaknesses of each of the first three positions. By end of the series I hope to demonstrate that the fourth position is the one that corresponds to reality. And once that is done, I will move to the next question, which is “Who is the rules maker?”

Who makes the rules for your life? Is there an answer that doesn’t fit into the four categories I have listed?

Not long ago, I attended a mandatory employees’ conference. This conference emphasized the investigative arm of the law enforcement agency for which I work. Much of the material dealt with violent crimes people commit against one another. At the end of the two-day event, I was emotionally spent.

I am aware of the evil we do to one another. But to see how prevalent internet crimes against children are and to see photos and hear descriptions of many, many crime scenes was painful. I was mourning over the condition of mankind.

One of my co-workers that has worked in the lab a little over a year is sometimes called to assist with crime scene processing. She really seems to enjoy that aspect of the job. Knowing this, I asked her what she thought about the conference. The reply was very positive. Learning more about how the agents work scenes and solve crimes was fascinating to her. When the question was then turned back on me, I told her of my heavy heart and the mourning I felt after seeing how terribly people treat one another.

I then asked her another question, “Do you think people are basically good or basically evil?” I wish I could remember her exact words, but they were something along the lines of, “Well, with what I see here I work, I have to believe people are basically good. Otherwise, it would be depressing.”

I found her response to be very interesting. Despite seeing murder victims at crime scenes and working in a forensics lab where evidence related to thousands of crimes each year is analyzed, she says she wants to believe people are basically good. While I would like to think that too, I just don’t think the facts support it. Consider the following questions.

If people are basically good:

Why do kids know how to lie without being taught?

Why do we honor character traits such as bravery and integrity? Shouldn’t that those be the norm?

Why do people participate in rioting, causing more death and destruction than the event over which they are rioting?

Why do our public school campuses look more and more like correctional institutions – fences and gates and security guards and policemen?

Is it possible to answer these questions and still maintain people are morally good at their core? I don’t see how. Unfortunately, we people are basically rotten to the core. And this is precisely the description given to us in the Bible.

Asking people their thoughts about the good vs evil nature of man is one of my favorite ways to begin an apologetics conversation. I have found people will usually share their thoughts on this topic pretty freely. I then ask some follow-up questions like the ones above. This allows me to begin to understand their viewpoint and formulate more questions for further discussion.